Understanding transgenderism.

[Angrboda]

By that logic, sexual orientation is also purely a social construct (see below).  That's obviously wrong somewhere along the way.  Other than that, your entire argument is ipse dixit, which is a polite way of saying that you're talking out of your ass.  Do you have any medical or scientific evidence supporting your view.  I've already provided evidence that you're wrong, and so far you haven't addressed it.

By what logic?  Sex is not an idea or theory comprised of multiple conceptual elements, subjective, and not based on empirical data.  Preferring one sex over another stymies gender.  You might like flat chested muscular girls as a guy.  Soft effeminate boys as a girl, etc.  They aren't just different things, they're not even the same kind of thing.  You might even be a trans person with cis-appropriate sexual orientations.  Being trans is not the same thing as being straight or gay.  For all of these reasons, none of them arguable in any way shape or form, conflating one with the other is ludicrous.

Apparently you need it spelled out for you. You were implying that because the percentage of transgender individuals among states vary, it's not a natural or objective trait because if it were, then one would expect the percentages to be the same wherever one went. So I pointed out that the percentages of LGBT vary depending upon where you go as well, being mostly determined by sexual orientation. If variation in percentages depending on where you go is evidence that transgender identity has no objective or natural basis, then the same phenomenon among percentages of LGBT indicates that sexual orientation has no objective or natural basis, because it's the same logic. But we know that this is not true of sexual orientation, so obviously that logic is insufficient to show it for transgender identity because it's the same argument. If it's invalid for sexual orientation, then it's invalid as an argument for transgenderism.

Let me offer you an analogy. We know that morals differ across both cultures and time. Yet we also know that the variation of morals is not in itself sufficient to show that morals don't have an objective foundation. The variation can have multiple explanations beyond the one you've latched upon that it indicates a lack of an objective basis. I presume you can see that for morals, well the same applies to the differences in transgender expression.

You have a theory as to why people of specific genders choose to express their gender in specific ways, and that is that gender expression is culturally conditioned. And it is. But they choose the culturally conditioned gender expression which corresponds with their perceived gender. If it's purely culturally conditioned then you need to explain why a small percentage choose to go against their culturally conditioned gender expressions, which you have failed to do. Under your theory, there seems no good reason for transgenderism at all aside from rebellious personalities, which is an absurd explanation. And your explanation totally falls down in the case of genderqueer individuals, whose gender doesn't conform to cultural expectation.

The problem is that you're confusing gender, which is not culturally conditioned, with gender expression, which is. Culture tells a female cis-gendered person in the U.S. that she can express her gender by wearing a dress. But culture doesn't tell her that she is the gender of person who should adopt the gender expressions that go along with being female. That's not culturally conditioned. Just as culture conditions appropriate ways to express aggression, it's their testosterone influenced brains that are telling men to be aggressive. You've confused gender expression with gender itself. They're not the same thing.

And you still haven't addressed the evidence from brain structures.